Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc. et al

Filing 155

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 127 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Case No. 12-cv-05331-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 10 ACRONIS, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 127 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) moves to file under 13 14 seal Exhibit 16 to Defendants-Counterclaimants Acronis, Inc., Acronis International GMBH and 15 OOO Acronis’ (“Acronis”) Responsive Claim Construction Brief, and to redact references within 16 the brief. ECF No. 124. Symantec has filed a declaration in support of sealing, and Acronis filed 17 a brief in opposition to sealing which was subsequently withdrawn. ECF Nos. 124-1, 142 & 154. 18 The Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 19 I. 20 LEGAL STANDARD A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 21 Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 22 documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 23 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation 24 marks omitted). 25 With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 26 (1) establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 27 or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 28 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 1 the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 2 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 3 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 4 With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 5 presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a 6 party seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be 7 overcome only if the party presents “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 8 that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 9 Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172 at 1178-79 (internal citation omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. On the other hand, when a party seeks to file previously sealed discovery materials in 12 13 connection with a non-dispositive motion, the sealing party need not meet the ‘compelling 14 reasons’ standard “because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 15 underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that 16 case, a party need only make a “particularized showing under the good cause standard of Rule 17 26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and internal quotation 18 marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or 19 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 26(c). A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 21 22 seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 23 2374 (U.S. 2012). 24 II. 25 ANALYSIS Since the sealing request relates to a non-dispositive claim construction brief that is not 26 connected to a pending summary judgment motion, the “good cause” standard for sealing applies. 27 See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Symantec 28 has supported its request with a declaration attesting that the information it seeks to seal and redact 2 1 is testimony from a Symantec employee describing the functionality of Symantec’s products. 2 Declaration of Brianne M. Straka (“Straka Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 24-1. Straka also declares that 3 public disclosure of the information would subject Symantec to competitive harm because it 4 would expose otherwise secret information about the functionality of Symantec’s products to 5 competitors. Id. ¶ 13. The Court has reviewed the materials and concludes that the public 6 exposure of the materials could subject Symantec to “undue burden or expense,” and that sealing 7 is therefore appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c). 8 III. 9 CONCLUSION Symantec’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The responsive claims construction brief, and exhibit 16 thereto, shall be e-filed under seal in accordance with the procedures outlined in the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 FAQs on the ECF website. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 31, 2013 14 15 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?